When visiting Quincy this weekend, we were talking about reinvigorating our audience bases. I began to think about what the word AUDIENCE means and its etymology. I thought about the word audience's synonym, spectator.
audience (definition from Online Etymology Dictionary © 2001 Douglas Harper, www.etymonline.com)
c.1374, "the action of hearing," from O.Fr. audience, from L. audentia "a hearing, listening," from audientum (nom. audiens), prp. of audire "to hear," from PIE compound *au-dh- "to perceive physically, grasp," from base *au- "to perceive" (cf. Gk. aisthanesthai "to feel"). Meaning "formal hearing or reception" is from 1377; that of "persons within hearing range, assembly of listeners" is from 1407. Sense transferred 1855 to "readers of a book." Audience-participation (adj.) first recorded 1940.
spectator (Online Etymology Dictionary © 2001 Douglas Harper, www.etymonline.com)
1586, from L. spectator "viewer, watcher," from pp. stem of spectare "to view, watch" (see spectacle). Spectate (v.) is a back-formation attested from 1929. Spectator sport is attested from 1943.
I feel that these words, which at their roots indicate watching and listening, are too passive for the new generation of theatre-goer, the person who attends the new wave of the American theatre.
The audience needs a christening: the spectator need a new name in order to fulfill their new role as active partners/participants in the theatrical event.
I want a word that connotes a conversation-partner, a participant, a theatre-maker, a collaborator, a peer, a responder.
Any ideas?
9.18.2007
9.11.2007
Anti-company model? Or reinventing the wheel
There's an embryonic idea I'm working on for a company-- but it feels like it's at the edges of my brain and needs a catalyst for the AHA moment. So I'll rant a little
now and see what I come up with-- maybe one of you has an AHA response???
If part of my (our?) dissatisfaction with trends in American theatre today stems from the running of non-profit companies with subscribers and seasons, is there a way to break apart that model and build something else in response? Perhaps a company built on a project-to-project basis that attracts funding and audiences for each specific project? A company that knows it's temporary, like the show itself?
The company's project ideas are need-driven. Those needs can be broadly defined. (Ex: There's a need to bring light to the state of veterans affairs. Or there's a need to create event-style theatre pieces to help shake up the audience experience. Or there's a need to LIGHTEN UP during the election year. You get my drift.) Fundraising strategies get streamlined this way and different deep pockets can be picked with each topic that projects are based on.
Projects are given lengthy developmental processes (9months-1year for creation) and are built with an investment in the community that the need-based idea comes from. (Is this from interviews? Classes? Coffee shop readings?)Using the "Tipping Point" idea of "The law of the few" seems important here.
There is no single location for the company. The company locus moves to serve whatever community best fits the project. (Ex: I've got an idea for a project on Executive Assistants. The piece could take place in a midtown location during lunch or at happy hour during the week.)
(The more I write this, the more I'm thinking about En Garde Arts and Tectonic Theatre Project. I think I'm talking about a mash-up of the two models.)But how is there sustainability with a model like this? Does a company need institutional memory in order to have success? What are the administrative needs and is there a way to experiment with their structure without creating chaos or funding gaps?
I'm also thinking a lot about how to make changes in theatre that can cause audience excitement and artist invigoration. I want to change the way theatre is created and perceived in this country. Are these somewhat scattered ideas a pathway to that goal? Or is this just a rehashing of old ideas that have fizzled before?
now and see what I come up with-- maybe one of you has an AHA response???
If part of my (our?) dissatisfaction with trends in American theatre today stems from the running of non-profit companies with subscribers and seasons, is there a way to break apart that model and build something else in response? Perhaps a company built on a project-to-project basis that attracts funding and audiences for each specific project? A company that knows it's temporary, like the show itself?
The company's project ideas are need-driven. Those needs can be broadly defined. (Ex: There's a need to bring light to the state of veterans affairs. Or there's a need to create event-style theatre pieces to help shake up the audience experience. Or there's a need to LIGHTEN UP during the election year. You get my drift.) Fundraising strategies get streamlined this way and different deep pockets can be picked with each topic that projects are based on.
Projects are given lengthy developmental processes (9months-1year for creation) and are built with an investment in the community that the need-based idea comes from. (Is this from interviews? Classes? Coffee shop readings?)Using the "Tipping Point" idea of "The law of the few" seems important here.
There is no single location for the company. The company locus moves to serve whatever community best fits the project. (Ex: I've got an idea for a project on Executive Assistants. The piece could take place in a midtown location during lunch or at happy hour during the week.)
(The more I write this, the more I'm thinking about En Garde Arts and Tectonic Theatre Project. I think I'm talking about a mash-up of the two models.)But how is there sustainability with a model like this? Does a company need institutional memory in order to have success? What are the administrative needs and is there a way to experiment with their structure without creating chaos or funding gaps?
I'm also thinking a lot about how to make changes in theatre that can cause audience excitement and artist invigoration. I want to change the way theatre is created and perceived in this country. Are these somewhat scattered ideas a pathway to that goal? Or is this just a rehashing of old ideas that have fizzled before?
9.04.2007
On The Audience
This is a quick little spit of a rant:
I think one of the deadliest things to say to oneself is "will The Audience understand/like/connect to/laugh at/emote with this idea"?
The Audience. What the hell does that mean? WHO is The Audience? Most of us don't really have a clue who our audience is (outside of our friends and colleagues - but even then we cannot begin to guess what each of our nearest and dearest are going to get out of a certain moment). So how can we guess what The Audience will think or understand about a piece?
I keep coming back to Quincy's citation of Foreman's philosophy of making theatre only for three specific people. I think that all theatre artists (especially directors, playwrights and designers) should strive to focus on communicating to his or her own private, specific audience - even if that audience is, say, one's 8-year-old self, one's inner angry young man and one's dead grandmother.
Specificity of intention is what communicates, not generality. I am firmly against telling yourself NO to an idea, a moment or a story-telling method because of the anticipated reaction of The Audience. Of course, not all ideas are good, and not all ideas communicate. But you can't guess what comes across the footlights until you have a real live breathing audience of individuals in the room with you. Once you're in previews, if your Actual Audience (as opposed to your theoretical audience) does not understand/like/connect to/laugh at/emote with this moment, then you can adjust accordingly.
I think one of the deadliest things to say to oneself is "will The Audience understand/like/connect to/laugh at/emote with this idea"?
The Audience. What the hell does that mean? WHO is The Audience? Most of us don't really have a clue who our audience is (outside of our friends and colleagues - but even then we cannot begin to guess what each of our nearest and dearest are going to get out of a certain moment). So how can we guess what The Audience will think or understand about a piece?
I keep coming back to Quincy's citation of Foreman's philosophy of making theatre only for three specific people. I think that all theatre artists (especially directors, playwrights and designers) should strive to focus on communicating to his or her own private, specific audience - even if that audience is, say, one's 8-year-old self, one's inner angry young man and one's dead grandmother.
Specificity of intention is what communicates, not generality. I am firmly against telling yourself NO to an idea, a moment or a story-telling method because of the anticipated reaction of The Audience. Of course, not all ideas are good, and not all ideas communicate. But you can't guess what comes across the footlights until you have a real live breathing audience of individuals in the room with you. Once you're in previews, if your Actual Audience (as opposed to your theoretical audience) does not understand/like/connect to/laugh at/emote with this moment, then you can adjust accordingly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)